Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epacgd$8qk_002(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ru2dnXYbBez24CrYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ep7jd1$8ss_006(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45B64130.D6F8E740(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>In the UK it's a crime to belong to an illegal organisation or aid/abet >>>>one. >>>>Additionally it's apparently a crime also to fail to disclose/report >>> knowledge >>>>of such things. >>>> >>>>That would seem to cover pretty much what's required. >>> >>> Are people, who are arrested for that crime, able to post bail >>> before they are tried in your country? >> >>Anyone who is arrested _may_ be released on bail, however if they are >>considered a danger then it is unlikely. Most people charged under the >>various Prevention of Terrorism Acts we have had over the years have been >>refused bail. >> >>Are you worried that a guilty person may be offered bail? Is it worse if a >>guilty rapist is offered bail? > > It's a similar problem. Take that guy who goes after boys. He > can get out because the judge allowed bail. I don't trust judges' > descretions any further than I can spit. You really do not want to live in a representative democracy do you?
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:41 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B7E77B.8D91850E(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> Ken Smith wrote: >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > I said: >> >>>In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. >> >>>It's >> >>down to the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more >> >>serious >> cases >> >> whether bail will be offered. >> >> >> >>What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >> >>threats by these terrorists? >> > >> > In that case, chances are he is right. In England, however, the person >> > is >> > still likely to be remanded (held) pending the trial. The trial will >> > happen soon there after. Bail is less frequent in the UK than in the >> > US. >> > On a serious charge, the judge is not as likely to offer it. >> > >> >>>Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand >> >>>pending >> >>their trial. >> >> >> >>But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >> >>is a likelihood of guilt. I think London escaped a mess by the >> >>skin of their teeth. >> > >> > If the police don't have enough evidence, the person is not very likely >> > to >> > be in front of the judge in the first place. The police don't go >> > around >> > arresting people at random. >> >> Read about probable cause. The threshold to arrest is >> less than the threshold to indict is less than the >> threshold to convict. > > No such thing as 'probable cause' in the UK. When someone's charged with > an > offence they expect to be able to convict btw. Yep, the CPS have to be something like 80% certain of a conviction before anything will go ahead. The actual grounds for an "arrest" are slightly different, which is why lots of people get arrested, questioned and then released without charge. Fundamentally the arrest is simply to ensure the person being questioned does not walk off half way through.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:43 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ep98ia$v3$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <45B7E77B.8D91850E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] >>No such thing as 'probable cause' in the UK. When someone's charged with >>an >>offence they expect to be able to convict btw. > > You just don't call it the same thing. The "probable cause" term is used > to mean something less than complete proof but much more than speculation. > I think the folks in the UK use the term "grounds" in such areas. > Sort of, although "arrest" in the UK seems to have morphed into multiple meanings. I suspect a "more correct" usage would be the "Arrest" (which can be on iffy grounds) is then followed by being "Charged." (Which is where the CPS demand a massively high chance of success to charge). However, this is a bit of a pedantic line of argument.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epak56$8ss_005(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B782A7.A2676982(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >> >T Wake wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> You see, here you demand that people be punished on the suspicion > that >>> >> >> they intend to do harm. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> It is sad you do not see this is a morally wrong thing to do. >>> >> > >>> >> >Naive views. >>> >> > >>> >> >You've ignored that conspiracy to commit a "main crime" is a >>> >> >criminal act even before the "main crime" has been committed. >>> >> >People are sent to prison for this rather frequently. >>> >> > >>> >> >Conspiracy is the usual case in the forms of terrorism that >>> >> >are the basis of these discussions. >>> >> >>> >> When someone is arrested for this, do they not get to post >>> >> bail and get out? Why would such a person stop making >>> >> plans to make a mess just because he's been arrested and >>> >> may have a trial in two years? >>> > >>> >In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. >>> >It's >>> >down to the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more >>> >serious >>> cases >>> >whether bail will be offered. >>> >>> What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >>> threats by these terrorists? >> >>If the judge believes that, I'd be inclined to trust his opinion. >> >>You see in the UK there has to be a high standard of evidence before a >>charge > is >>even brought in the first place. > > Exactly. Your chances of having a mess becomes more likely than > less likely. This is another sign of your dislike of democracy and people's rights. Why you live in the West is beyond me. Other than the religious orientation you would be much more suited in the Middle East. What you are saying here is that because innocent people can not be punished, there is more chance of something bad happening. You are really off the rails. >>> >Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand >>> >pending >>> >their trial. >>> >>> But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >>> is a likelihood of guilt. >> >>That's how a decent justice system woorks. Correct. We don't lock ppl up >>on >>suspicion alone. >> >> >>> I think London escaped a mess by the skin of their teeth. >> >>Which supposed 'mess' did you have in mind ? > > I think it was on the news this past summer. There were lots of things on the news. Can you be any more specific? Is this another example of where your memory may have conflated multiple bits of information and caused you to conclude something different to everyone else? >>> >You need to fix your legal system if ppl have to wait 2 years for a >>> >trial >>> >btw. >>> >>> Most of this is because the defense lays down legal roadblocks all >>> the way to after sentencing. >> >>After sentencing ? That has nothing to do with a trial date. > > Reread what I wrote. > > /BAH
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:52
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epakdb$8ss_006(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> [.....] >>> >>>>Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >>>>what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >>>>legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >>>>the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >>>>This is not adequate. >>> >>> >>> These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. >> >>Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're >>drafting a new law. >> >>> You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people >>> without >>> cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. >> >>I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? > > No, I haven't. Oh look. It's gone all panto again. Oh yes you did. > They jumped off the deep end with their assumption > that these matters fall into the criminal category and claim > that this will deal with the dangers of these terrorists. What is > really puzzling is that their method did not stop their > home grown terrorists at all. Really? You are, once more, walking out into an area about which you have almost no understanding and yet you try to make authoritative posts. > Their methods allowed those people > to continue to make messes and they appear to be willing clean > up the messes. > FUD. >>Besides, they have probable cause sufficient to make the arrest, >>and that's not nothing usually. >> >>> The terrorists have already won. You have given up everything >> > you hoped to defend. >> >>Not true either. Certainly not "everything." I'd like to see a >>law under which a person is paid whatever their usual earnings >>are while they're incarcerated until they are convicted, including >>fringe benefits. That would move justice along much faster. > > I don't think it will. I think it would be an incentive to delay > indefinitely. That would be one path to making the whole country > be a welfare state. > > /BAH > |